DescentBB

I have to wonder what it is about Colorado that spawn mass murderers. While listening to the news this morning I was amazed no one asked the one real important question. I heard the normal questions about the dead and injured. I heard questions about where the shooter was from. I even heard one astute detective asking where the shooter got his guns.
No one seems to wonder just how the guy with body armor and helmet, dressed in black and carrying a rifle got into the theater, got into the section where batman was being shown and no one noticed anything...well strange. If he had everything in a duffel bag, did not anyone wonder why he was carrying such a large bag? If he did have a duffel bag then where did he go to put his equipment on? Still waiting for the question to be answered.

woodchip wrote:I have to wonder what it is about Colorado that spawn mass murderers. While listening to the news this morning I was amazed no one asked the one real important question. I heard the normal questions about the dead and injured. I heard questions about where the shooter was from. I even heard one astute detective asking where the shooter got his guns.
No one seems to wonder just how the guy with body armor and helmet, dressed in black and carrying a rifle got into the theater, got into the section where batman was being shown and no one noticed anything...well strange. If he had everything in a duffel bag, did not anyone wonder why he was carrying such a large bag? If he did have a duffel bag then where did he go to put his equipment on? Still waiting for the question to be answered.

A very tragic event to be sure, yes there are numerous questions to be answered. Very sad, very disturbing.

Now I ask you: You imply that Colorado is spawning mass murderers. I say, no more than any other place. The perpetrator in this incident was living in Colorado, but is from California (a place that has also known mass murderers). What's to say you're not a future mass murderer?

Do you seriously think no one is asking if anyone noticed the duffle bag? The incident has just happened, officials haven't had the chance yet to get all the questions answered! Why are you asking "Still waiting for the question to be answered."?

Sheesh! Give the officials a chance to finish their job before you get carried away in your usual "gotta blame someone" game (which by the way is something many mass murderers do). Should we be keeping an eye on you?

We've had 2 shootings in as many days in Ottawa. Toronto had 2 shootings and many killed/injured in a few days. This week has been bad for gun related violence.

The theater back door was propped open, woodchip.

P.S. I don't appreciate the implication about Coloradans. I live near Aurora, my wife and stopped at a restaurant near that theater over the weekend. I heard similar things about Oklahomans in '95 when I lived in OKC, and that frankly pisses me off a bit.

Cue the press/etc blaming it on: Violent media (which they or their parent companies often profit from), violent video games (which millions of people play regularly without murdering people in real life), incompetent schools/teachers/parents (ok, might be some merit to the incompetent parenting part), or just about anything else they can think of other than the person that actually did it and the society that raised them.

What a shame, I just read that one of the dead in this shooting had barely escaped the shooting in Toronto Eaton mall. She had a feeling and left the mall before the shooter came in and now she's dead at this theatre.

Why does this world always have to be so violent? <-- doesn't need answering.

The people in Colorado are no different than anywhere else. I lived there for several years and people were always nice, except when it came to the topic of Texans. Coloradans loved to gripe about those Texas tourists and the aggressive way they skied in all the high mountain ski areas. After skiing in Breckenridge for a few years myself, I was inclined to agree with them.

However, why this guy snapped is really a mystery. He didn't even try to commit suicide before he was caught either. The question is WHY do something crazy like that, essentially destroying his life and the lives of others and still want to keep on living, all to end up in prison and probably die as a punishment. Doesn't make sense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... e-theater/

tunnelcat wrote:He didn't even try to commit suicide before he was caught either.

From what I've read, seems like he was hoping to cause more death, since he gave himself up without a fight and told police that he had bomb materials at his apartment (turns out he had booby-trapped the place).

Still doesn't make sense. If one is going to kill a bunch of people and go out in a blaze of glory, wouldn't that person want to shoot it out until they ran out of ammo, and then take one's own life? I'd think that going to prison after a murderous rampage like that would definitely not be a preferable option.

Foil wrote:The theater back door was propped open, woodchip.

P.S. I don't appreciate the implication about Coloradans. I live near Aurora, my wife and stopped at a restaurant near that theater over the weekend. I heard similar things about Oklahomans in '95 when I lived in OKC, and that frankly pisses me off a bit.

Alas, there is no "tongue in cheek" icon and my reference to Colorado is purely whimsey and nothing more. Kindly do not get your panties in a bunch...

Krom wrote:Cue the press/etc blaming it on: Violent media (which they or their parent companies often profit from), violent video games (which millions of people play regularly without murdering people in real life), incompetent schools/teachers/parents (ok, might be some merit to the incompetent parenting part), or just about anything else they can think of other than the person that actually did it and the society that raised them.

Well it would seem the illustrious and intrepid investigative reporter Brian Ross from ABC news already tried to tie the shooter to the Tea Party. Now ABC news has egg on it's face and has offered a apology.

woodchip wrote:Brian Ross from ABC news already tried to tie the shooter to the Tea Party.

He was a neuroscience student. Perhaps he was using the same 'brain enhancing' substances that Roid uses...

...or am I being a bit hasty in my assumption?

another sad example of what I tried to state in the Fast and Furious thread. If stuff like this doesn't make the public, en masse, wish to revisit easy access to guns(and it won't), what was F and F supposed to be doing by way of a subversive plot to create an uproar?

tunnelcat wrote:Still doesn't make sense. If one is going to kill a bunch of people and go out in a blaze of glory, wouldn't that person want to shoot it out until they ran out of ammo, and then take one's own life? I'd think that going to prison after a murderous rampage like that would definitely not be a preferable option.

Not if he watched the sequel to Batman Begins. Apparently he was the psycho, new-age, super-villain wanna-be the theater deserved, but not the one it needed.

callmeslick wrote:another sad example of what I tried to state in the Fast and Furious thread. If stuff like this doesn't make the public, en masse, wish to revisit easy access to guns(and it won't), what was F and F supposed to be doing by way of a subversive plot to create an uproar?

The trick with F & F, from what I've heard, was to create an international indecent so that the U.N. could be used to pressure the U.S. into accepting various unconstitutional gun control measures (which is what they'd really like to do anyway).

ThunderBunny wrote:

woodchip wrote:Brian Ross from ABC news already tried to tie the shooter to the Tea Party.

He was a neuroscience student. Perhaps he was using the same 'brain enhancing' substances that Roid uses...

...or am I being a bit hasty in my assumption?

Naw, roid gets all mellow, not psycho, from his brain enhancing substances.

Tea partiers don't go to college either. They wouldn't step 2 inches into the hallowed halls of liberalism.

callmeslick wrote:another sad example of what I tried to state in the Fast and Furious thread. If stuff like this doesn't make the public, en masse, wish to revisit easy access to guns(and it won't), what was F and F supposed to be doing by way of a subversive plot to create an uproar?

Federal Govt allows drug dealing psychos access to guns, thousands die and no one says a peep. One psycho buys a couple of guns, kills 12 and wounds 40 and we now have to revisit access to buying guns. \O/

callmeslick wrote:another sad example of what I tried to state in the Fast and Furious thread. If stuff like this doesn't make the public, en masse, wish to revisit easy access to guns(and it won't), what was F and F supposed to be doing by way of a subversive plot to create an uproar?

If you're talking about gun control, all that's going to do is make it even harder for lawful people to own firearms. criminals on the other hand won't be affected by it at all. they'll do what they always do. steal the gun and then use it. and usually that results in calls for stricter gun control.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:another sad example of what I tried to state in the Fast and Furious thread. If stuff like this doesn't make the public, en masse, wish to revisit easy access to guns(and it won't), what was F and F supposed to be doing by way of a subversive plot to create an uproar?

If you're talking about gun control, all that's going to do is make it even harder for lawful people to own firearms. criminals on the other hand won't be affected by it at all. they'll do what they always do. steal the gun and then use it. and usually that results in calls for stricter gun control.

this wacko picked up an automatic rifle, two cheap-ass semi auto handguns and a shotgun, all in few months time. Not to mention a load of ammo and protective gear. In a rational society, such behavior ought to raise red flags. This has nothing to do with gun theft by anyone. By the way, most criminals don't steal guns either. They buy them on the black market, largely created by our laughably lax laws on gun ownership. Yes, some of those(many of those) are stolen at some point in the chain, but your whole line of reasoning is nonsense, to put it mildly.

What behavior, callmeslick? There's nothing rational about suspecting someone who buys guns, because there's nothing rational about taking them to the movie theater instead of the shooting range. Rational is not selling firearms to someone who shows signs of not playing with a full deck, and I'm confident that any of the gun dealers around here are ready to make that decision. Setting government restrictions on these people's business is not a solution, it's bureaucratic bull**** hurting the little guy and the rest of us.

really? tell that to the guy who pulled a shotgun on me during a home invasion.

anecdotal note aside, picking up an automatic rifle and two handguns with ammo over the course of time doesn't necessarily suggest he's a "whacko" as you put it. the body armour could be viewed as questionable but it doesn't automatically mean a person has malicious intentions.

It may be true that some criminals do get their guns via black market, but most of them usually do a BnE and steal the guns inside. Why? it's easier and you don't have to shell out for anything.

Stricter gun control won't eliminate the black market. you can make it as strict to the point where firearms cannot be sold to the general public at all, but at that point the members of the general public that are interested in firearms will collectively go ape. And even then, a black market will still exist, where even the otherwise law-abiding citizen will go. Why? because people will find a way, no matter how strict it gets (see prohibition)

I didn't figure you for an advocate for gun control, slick. and the "nonsense" part? You haven't been down the road I have, mate.

I don't even know where I personally fall on the whole control issue at this point, but from a common-sense perspective, when you have a single individual who buys four high-powered weapons in a span of less than two months...that has to raise someone's eyebrows. I mean, these weren't normal hunting weapons, or a single pistol to use on a range: he bought two Glocks, an assault rifle, and a shotgun. It's like...if you're the guy selling him these, and if you see those prior purchases (are those sorts of records kept in a central database?), you have to wonder, just what is he doing with all of this? We already have double-checks in place for people attempting to buy large amounts of fertilizer or certain chemicals, and those aren't even primarily used as weapons. No matter the venue, there's not really anything you can do with a gun other than shoot at something.

callmeslick wrote:
this wacko picked up an automatic rifle, two cheap-ass semi auto handguns and a shotgun, all in few months time.

First off slick it was not a fully automatic rifle. It was a semi-automatic AR 15 variant. It takes a class C license to buy fully automatic. Second Glocks are not "Cheap-ass" pistols. You must still live in the Saturday night special twilight zone

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What behavior, callmeslick? There's nothing rational about suspecting someone who buys guns, because there's nothing rational about taking them to the movie theater instead of the shooting range.

look, I belong to two sportsmans clubs with ranges. I own hunting weapons. Find me ONE person involved in legiitimate sproting use who is going to buy 4 weapons, 10,000 rounds of ammo and head-to-toe body armor over a matter of a few months. One.
Get real and stop making excuses for a completely irrational system that hurts people with alarming regularity. For no good reason, other than the political might of the NRA.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
this wacko picked up an automatic rifle, two cheap-ass semi auto handguns and a shotgun, all in few months time.

First off slick it was not a fully automatic rifle. It was a semi-automatic AR 15 variant. It takes a class C license to buy fully automatic. Second Glocks are not "Cheap-ass" pistols. You must still live in the Saturday night special twilight zone

My bad on the long piece, but I'll gladly stand by the opinion of Glocks. They are plastic pieces of crap and, by the way, their very marketing is responsible for tens of thousands of handguns that flooded the market in the past decade. I note that you state nothing that refutes the actual point I made, and embellished in my reply to Thorne.

I don’t really see the point with the guy having 4 weapons, he could have killed just as many or more with just one. (regarding setting off red flags)

I also don’t really get the point of background checks doing anything to prevent this kind of thing…seeing how so many of these nut jobs seem perfectly normal…until the event.

Remember that guy who went up that tower, and shot some 40 or so people…he was a model citizen, a real boy scout.

I don’t know, but for some reason, my gut is telling me, gun control is not going to solve this problem. (not that the laws can’t be improved) This is a sick violent society, I doubt hiding all of the knives is going to help.

Bombs are the weapon of choice in some places….(homemade)

I feel perfectly safe carrying one of these, which will neutralize 99% of all threats:

Baton

and this for the guy in the the theatre:

My snubby

and for home defense, the best close combat weapon ever made, plus this guy will group 3 sabot slugs in a 3 inch hole at 100 yards , they better be glad the wacko didn't have one of these. The middle one is mine. Ghost rings, thicker barrel and metal trigger guard and safety, 2 extractors and improved cylinder. I love this thing

Mossberg

Now, why should I be denied any of these or the peace of mind I feel knowing I have a much greater chance of survival if I am ever confronted with one of these incidents?

Spidey wrote:I don’t really see the point with the guy having 4 weapons, he could have killed just as many or more with just one. (regarding setting off red flags)

very true. It's just that the over-the-top purchases should have set off alarms, but our system doesn't even allow for that. Sure enough, a killer could easily enough simply purchase one gun, and slowly acquire ammo, but no system is foolproof. I am just wondering why we cannot put a system in place that at least keeps the absolute loons in check.

I also don’t really get the point of background checks doing anything to prevent this kind of thing…seeing how so many of these nut jobs seem perfectly normal…until the event.

Remember that guy who went up that tower, and shot some 40 or so people…he was a model citizen, a real boy scout.

agreed, again. The only thing that showed a potential problem was his pattern of purchases.

I don’t know, but for some reason, my gut is telling me, gun control is not going to solve this problem. (not that the laws can’t be improved) This is a sick violent society, I doubt hiding all of the knives is going to help.

Bombs are the weapon of choice in some places….(homemade)

as I said above, I'm not seeking, nor expecting some absolute solution. Hell, some people will beat others to death with rocks or
baseball bats. I am saying that we, as a nation, and a society, can do better than allow folks(for whatever intent) to arm themselves beyond any reasonable need with utterly no control over the process. Yes, as Michael Moore ultimately pointed out in Bowling for Columbine, the issue is societal violence(which he sort of blamed on a society weaned on fear), not purely gun ownership.

flip wrote:I feel perfectly safe carrying one of these, which will neutralize 99% of all threats:

Baton

and this for the guy in the the theatre:

My snubby

and for home defense, the best close combat weapon ever made, plus this guy will group 3 sabot slugs in a 3 inch hole at 100 yards , they better be glad the wacko didn't have one of these. The middle one is mine. Ghost rings, thicker barrel and metal trigger guard and safety, 2 extractors and improved cylinder. I love this thing

Mossberg

Now, why should I be denied any of these or the peace of mind I feel knowing I have a much greater chance of survival if I am ever confronted with one of these incidents?

so, you can be expected to be the guy at the movies with your jumbo popcorn, a soda and your Mossie in your lap? By the way, one of this nut's weapons was a tactical shotgun, if I heard correctly. Still, I wouldn't necessarily deny you possession of any or all of those things, BUT, I would(were I your neighbor) wish the authorities to know if you bought all of them, plus a crapload of ammo and body armor with a month or two. Sound reasonable?

Sounds presumptive, restrictive and suspicious to me. There is nothing you can do to prevent a crazy from killing people, the best you can do is give the 99% of normal people the ability to protect themselves.

EDIT: And no, that's what the snubby is for .

So we have...

1) Present: Semi-Auto Assault, Shotgun, AND Semi-Auto Pistol.
2) Baby shot point-blank.
3) A reporter killed who had semi-recently escaped a similar attack.

It's a good think I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, or I'd suspect this was a clandestine op to galvanize a public reaction--as it is--leading up to a U.N. arms treaty--which we are. A fall-back after the failure of F&F? Pretty damn convenient, if you ask me.

...really, Thorne? You're that desperate to read something into this?

Top Gun wrote:...really, Thorne? You're that desperate to read something into this?

Why not? ABC news was trying to read the Tea Party into it.

Well, it appears very evident that the 'suspect' had been planning this for months.
http://usat.ly/NIP5W8

So, whether he found access to the kind of weaponry he used or not, he would have found other stuff or other ways to 'lash out with' anyway.

It's my opinion that better gun controls/laws would have done nothing to prevent him from 'lashing out' as he would have simply done something else instead, possibly something worse.

The real solution would have been changes to him as a person, whether it was the way he was brought up, social interactions that may have bothered him, physical/mental illness, situational issues ... whatever ... that is where things need to be changed , not with the kinds of weapons he was able to obtain.

Top Gun wrote:...really, Thorne? You're that desperate to read something into this?

I'm not desperate at all, Mr insult. I am mindful of what people are trying to do with it, and how far it could go. I disagree with callmeslick as far as what it is capable of doing, in the face of the failure of the failed F&F to significantly effect the gun control issue. This event is well-timed, and contains aspects needed to make it big in the public eye, instead of just another local tragedy. Also curious that he possessed a sampling of firearms. And curious is all it is, until some sort of evidence might be turned up. It's enough to warrant a deeper investigation, in my opinion. Desperation is not required to imagine that there are people/powers with motive to push gun control in order to disarm U.S. citizens (and/or force a civil war), and it doesn't even take much imagination to see that there are organizations who are capable of having had a hand in this, despite his months of preparation. You just wouldn't want to countenance anything that is not officially plausible or publicly acceptable. Me, I don't care. I've seen good evidence of conspiracy in the past, and I'm mindful that it is a possibility going forward, especially in regards to topics with such political significance.

You may consider that your persuasion, Top Gun, would never countenance a conspiracy (of which there have been many throughout history), until it is well-accepted/well-proven. You would never admit it here, but that should bother you.

Looks like a lot of people were lucky. The AR-15 had a non-standard 100 round drum magazine (the manufacturer claims they don't make it) and it jammed partway through this psycho's rampage. So he had to take out another type of gun, the police thick he used one of his Glocks, to keep on shooting. If he had gone through all the rounds his AR held, he might have killed far more people.

The police also revealed that when they went to the rear of the theater, the first officer initially thought the guy with the suit of armor was a fellow swat team member, until he quickly noticed that the lone guy had ONE LITTLE DETAIL DIFFERENT with his ensemble. That cue saved the cop's life and he quickly arrested the shooter without a struggle.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...really, Thorne? You're that desperate to read something into this?

Why not? ABC news was trying to read the Tea Party into it.

So what? They're both equally asinine viewpoints, and responding to one with another in the opposite direction just makes you every bit as much of an ass.

And go get help, Thorne. You're delusional.

Help, huh? Any suggestions?

Hands TG a tucks pad to help with his butt hurt

Cute.